Why is the accent ἔπαρον and ἔξελθε (on the antepenult - proparoxytone) when the general rule for verbs is that an accent cannot move past the division between the compounding preposition and the root? Smyth explains some of the very common oddball verbs below (see bolded text) But the accent is also recessive on a verb like ἔκβαλε (2 AOR), ἔξελε (2 AOR, εξαιρεω) and even ἔκβαλλε (Present). So, in Imperatives the normal "not-before-the-compound" rule is thrown out?

Paul-Nitz wrote:Why is the accent ἔπαρον and ἔξελθε (on the antepenult - proparoxytone) when the general rule for verbs is that an accent cannot move past the division between the compounding preposition and the root?

Whose "general rule" is this? The rules in Smyth § 426, a and b, are different.

Stephen Carlson wrote:Whose "general rule" is this? The rules in Smyth § 426, a and b, are different.

Thanks. That made me go back and read more carefully. I was mixing things up. I think I understand now. I’ll rephrase Smyth here in hopes someone will correct any misunderstanding. By the way, my interest in accents comes in because they are so important when speaking Greek (or any language).

1) The familiar rule about accents and compound verbs applies to forms with an augment. The accent will not precede the augment. εἰσῆλθον

[not εἴσηλθον] (cf. Smyth 426a)

2) Five very common verbs have irregular accents in the Aorist imperative:

3) An accent never precedes the last syllable of the preposition in a compound verb.

This rule doesn't come into play much because the vast majority of verb forms in Greek are 2 or more syllables. But, what if you have a monosyllabic verb form? If you also have a monosyllabic preposition, the rule won't be broken. E.g. ἔκδος - give (it) up! But if the preposition is 2 or more syllables, it might seem that the accent should recede. E.g .αποδος - give (it) back!. Where should the accent be? ἀπόδος. [not ἄποδος]

So, when two conditions are met:

a - you have a compound verb that is made up of a polysyllabic preposition(s) (περι, συν+ εν), and b- the verb form that the preposition(s) is attached to is mono-syllabic (θές, δός, σχές).

the accent will not recede back further than one notch before the verb… επίθες, περίθες, επίσχες.[not , ἔπιθες, πέριθες, ἔπισχες](cf. Smyth 426b)

If you check those two verbs out in the LXX you will find them accented "classically." If you check those two verbs out in the GNT you will find them correctly accented "Koine."

Now I don't know how, when, and why those accents changed. I've sometimes speculated that λάβε developed because "it could." That is, it could regularize without causing confusion with other verbs. However, this explanation is contraindicated with ἴδε because it becomes homophonic with εἶδε "he saw." However, this last objection can be mitigated by recognizing that during the Koine period, when this accent shift appears to have taken place, the past tense was almost always εἶδεν not εἶδε. However, such mitigation did not allow εἶπε "speak" to develop against εἶπεν. In that case, it may be the retained ει vowel in εἰπέ (imperative) that prevented the change. Incidentally, there are 637 εἶπεν in the GNT and zero εἶπε in NestAl Accordance. There are 42 εἶδεν and zero εἶδε.

I would have to say that you can't trust moveable nus in editions of the Greek New Testament. The usage is now editorial and not based on manuscripts, which vary widely. (I think Westcott and Hort tried to follow the manuscript usage, but that practice has been abandoned by later editors.)

Stephen Carlson wrote:I would have to say that you can't trust moveable nus in editions of the Greek New Testament. The usage is now editorial and not based on manuscripts, which vary widely. (I think Westcott and Hort tried to follow the manuscript usage, but that practice has been abandoned by later editors.)

I appreciate the caution, and recognize that patterns should be done according to manuscript.

Using Accordance on the GNT-WestcottHort I found 571 ειπεν and 1 εἶπε. No εἶδε, out of 42.

I don't have the Vaticanus module. Maybe someone could do a quick run to see if some ειπε, ειδε showup. ἦλθε is good for checking, too. My Accordance WestHort showed one ἦλθε for 87 ἦλθεν.

It's been a long time since I read some of Colwell's and Fee's studies. It would be interesting to see if there is any support for some editing in either the Alex or Byz traditions on this. P75 might give some slight support. Getting statistically significant figures will also be a problem.